Talk:Filipino language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Nature of the language 2 On Filipino 3 Yet another reason for calling the official language Filipino 4 Merge into Filipino language? 5 Dubious statements 6 Views on the Filipino/Tagalog debate 7 Yet another view/proposed view 8 The linguistic (scientific) view 9 Needs a cleanup 10 Mention of Tuscan Italian? 11 Filipino is a fictional language 11.1 Not fictional but artificial 11.2 Enrichment 12 On Italian and German dialects 13 Doubled consonants 14 Tagalog 15 So, do we need a Filipino grammar article? 16 Moved from article 16.1 On Filipino being by law any autochtonous Austronesian language spoken in any urban center in the country 16.2 First-language Filipino as opposed to Tagalog speakers 16.3 Perhaps 16.4 Standardization of Filipino based on the NCR dialect of Tagalog 16.5 Ethnic language 16.5.1 Ethnic neutrality 16.5.2 Filipino as distinct from or identical to Tagalog 16.6 Ideals, and dialects vs. languages 16.7 On amalgamation 16.8 Recognition of Cebuano 17 "amalgamation" theory needs citation

[edit] Nature of the language

What is the universal nucleus of the Filipino language?

Tagalog. Jondel

But ISO 639 accepts Filipino (ISO code fil) as a LEGITIMATE language just as (Bahasa) Indonesian, which is a VARIANT of MALAY - Isao

There should be an official Philippine declaration that Filipino and Pilipino are the same language or completely prohibit the use of the noun Pilipino in English documents. One or the other to avoid official and legal ambiguities. Also, Filipino and Tagalog should either be categorically and officially be differentiated or made the same for the same reasons.--Jondel 04:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On Filipino

Filipino is not the same as tagalog. In the Philippine Constitution(1987), it is stated that "Filipino" covers all dialects spoken in the Philippines

And clearly, that has not happened yet. And they're languages not dialects. --Chris 03:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC).

But it is happening --- but slowly. Words from other Philippine languages are finding their way into Filipino.

UP Diksyunaryong Filipino contains not only words borrowed from foreign languages but from other

Philippine languages as well. -- Daniw

Hey! I need to see that. Filipino practically is Tagalog. I don't think the Constitution is written in Hiligaynon or Chabakano,etc. but Tagalog. They teach Tagalog grammar in 'Filipino' subjects.--Jondel 09:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've already added what the Philippine Constitution says about "Filipino" in the article. It does not say it "covers" all "dialects". It does not even say it "covers" all Philippine languages. It merely says that Filipino will be enriched by Philippine and other languages. Linguistically, that doesn't say much as all languages (until they become extinct) are evolving and are influenced by other languages. It is natural for Tagalog to be influenced by English and the other Philippine languages. The constitution does not say Filipino is Tagalog, but it practically is. Native Tagalog speakers can understand all sentences that are "Filipino" but speakers of other Philippine languages have to go to school to learn "Filipino" in order to fully understand them. I still have to see a "Filipino" class in which the instructor willingly allows the students to write their essays in any Philippine language and competently grade them accordingly. While the UP Diksyunaryong Filipino might have words from the other Philippine languages, it doesn't mean the dictionary will eventually list out the words of all the Philippine languages. While an English dictionary will have words from French and Spanish, it does not mean that the English language "covers" both French and Spanish. --wng

Re the infobox classification, not many people will argue against the notion that Filipino as it is spoken and written today is actually just Tagalog, and I myself agree that equating the two languages with each other is far from controversial. However, Filipino was created by law, as opposed to already being a previously existing concept, and the law does not define Filipino as based on Tagalog nor any other single language. Emphasis should instead be given in the body of the article that it is de facto Tagalog. Also, Ethnologue is not always correct, as one can read even in its WP article. —Lagalag 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edits. The law is not the sole point of view governing the relationship of Tagalog and Filipino; there are linguistic point of views to take into consideration. The Constitution can say that Filipino was invented by Martians and is to follow German spelling conventions but in practice it's still Tagalog. --Chris S. 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the infobox might as well then reflect the figures for Tagalog-speakers. —Lagalag 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another reason for calling the official language Filipino

It is said that there was an outcry from the other language groups , especially from the Cebuanos, when they heard that the official langaguage was to be Tagalog. So instead, they named it Filipino.--Jondel 12:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into Filipino language?

Aside from the statements I mention below, the article looks helpful but this article probably should be merged into the Filipino language article? Wng 11:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I write here not as a speaker of Tagalog or Filipino, but as a mere reader (and student of other languages). I agree that this article should be merged into "Filipino language" (or "Tagalog language"), because they are all "presented" to us as the same subject (not the same "thing"!). The distinction discussed here is clearly part of the language itself (particular issues, problematic, evolution...), whatever it comes to be named. But before merging them, this entry should be cleaned, and then be added some nice, clear examples for practical distinction between the two languages and further elucidation. Right now, as a reader who came here to know better, the whole thing seems too theoretical to me, not clearly reflecting how it works among speakers. There's a lot of text, but lacking visual references (the written language itself, maybe) and a broader comprehension. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.139.129.3 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Examples are quite hard to come up with, given that people, mostly academics, linguists, politicians, have differing views on what Filipino is or should be. But anyway, here goes. First I’ll give a couple of sentences in Tagalog on which I’ll be basing my examples in Filipino:

• Tagalog (formal/literary): Pakipawi ng mga sinulat ng matatangkad mong mga kamag-aral na sina Pedro at Mark sa palatanungang inihanda ni G. Tan.
• Tagalog (informal [sort of]/oral): Paki-erase ng mga sinulat ng matatangkad mong mga kaklaseng sina Pedro at Mark sa questionnaire na pinriper ni Ser Tan.

Note that Tagalog, spoken informally, may or may not use Spanish or English words, depending on the individual, so erase can in its place be bura and kaklase can be classmate (and when dealing with money, singko can be five or even lima). And now the examples in the different proposed forms of Filipino, as best I can:

• Filipino as Tagalog: [same as above two]
• Filipino as Taglish: Paki-erase ng mga sinulat ng tall classmates mong sina Pedro and Mark sa questionnaire na pinriper ni Ser Tan.
• Filipino as Taglish w/ Spanish: Pakibura ng mga sinulat ng matatangkad mong mga kaklaseng sina Pedro and Mark sa kwestyonaryong prinepara ni Ser Tan.
• Filipino as code-switching: Iyong mga sinulat ng tall classmates mong sina Pedro and Mark sa questionnaire, please erase them. Or What your tall clasmmates na sina Pedro and Mark wrote sa questionnaire, paki-erase.
• Filipino as lingua franca: [fluid; depends on where one is in the Philippines at the moment and how many indigenous languages one knows and the degree to which one is acquainted with Spanish words and English]
• Filipino as amalgamation of all indigenous Philippine languages: [something like Europanto; someone help me out here]

Hope that helps. —Lagalag 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious statements

Have tagged some statements that I believe needs to be verified: 1. 30% native speaker of Filipino, 80% second language speakers -- the census states almost close to 30% or even more than 30% Tagalog in the Philippines. If there's a difference between Filipino and Tagalog, then we should not state that 30% native speaker of Filipino. It is also confusing why 80% are second language speakers. Shouldn't we count only the remaining 70% (i.e., if they're native speakers, they shouldn't be counted as 2nd language speakers anymore)?

2. The statement that says there are arguably more native Filipino speakers than native Tagalog speakers should be corrected. There are definitely few native speakers of Filipino if we don't count the native Tagalog speakers. Some cities like Cotabato might be more Filipino-speaking but the total population of such places is definitely less than the Tagalog-speaking region. If it is established that a native Tagalog speaker is automatically a native Filipino speaker, then that may hold true, but the statement remains very confusing.

3. The statement that says Filipino competes in business is dubious. The number of printed materials and almost all business correspondence are in English. Filipino might be competing with English in local TV commercials; and in some media, like the radio, there is definitely more Filipino. However, one can only see English in receipts, checks, business forms, etc. There probably is a difference when one business establishment uses English, when it uses Filipino, and when it uses a regional language. However, saying they "compete" might not be accurate.

You are correct there. I would like to add that Filipino does compete with English in spoken business deals. But once it is put into writing, everything is translated into English.

4. Am not sure if we can still say that Tagalog has "20 letter vocabulary". There probably isn't any official standard left on how to write Tagalog after Filipino "replaced" Tagalog. Anyhow, the statement leads us to believe that anyone who uses the "f", "j", "v", or "z" sound may no longer be speaking Tagalog, which is not the case.

Officially, in a law approved in 1987 authored by Nene Pimentel (but which I forgot the number) there are now 28 letters. However the former Institute of National Language in the 60's did officially say that Pilipino had 20 phonemes.

--Wng 11:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Views on the Filipino/Tagalog debate

I actually asked my teachers (including the Filipino teachers) in Colegio San Agustin in Makati City about whether it was appropriate to treat Filipino as if it were Tagalog (apparently it was over the entire debate to rename the Tagalog Wikipedia). According to what I have heard, this was the general consensus among the teachers:

• Filipino is not the same as Tagalog
• Tagalog is a dialect of Filipino
• While non-Tagalog tongues like Cebuano are true languages in their own right, the general public view is that they are dialects (a Filipino speaker can regard Cebuano as a dialect and vice-versa)

While it is understandable that most Filipino speakers, especially in Metro Manila, refer to Filipino as Tagalog (the use of the term "Tagalog" is more prevalent that the term "Filipino"), those learning Filipino outside the Katagalugan in many cases use the term "Filipino".

It can prove that Filipino and Tagalog are distinct in the modern cultural sense, but there might not be substantial evidence that supports a full split between Tagalog and Filipino. Technically, both languages (or dialects or whatever you want to call it) are still, in my opinion, dependent on each other and on other languages.

--Akira123323 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It should also be interesting to note that in many universities, professors are promulgating the view that Filipino is a dialect (or more accurately, a standardized version) of Tagalog, quite the opposite of what they’ve been ramming into students’ heads in elementary school. —Lagalag 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no controversy in the Bahasa Indonesian article even though the same argument in this article is pratically applicable there? -Isaw

if you look at the history of the language, the root cause of the confusion is basically regional arrogance. Most specifically the reason stated by Jondel above where the Cebuanos would protest the use of Tagalog as the national language....so in order to avoid this, we created a term for the language as Pilipino (originally) then again renamed Filipino in 1972 then to add more confusion, the 1987 constitution's definition made it more ambiguous. But basically, it is Tagalog as it has evolved over time....It would be best just to name Tagalog as the national language, regardless of the protestations of those arrogant and proud Cebuanos....when a kapampangan native and a visayan native talk to one another, what language do they use? it is either english or tagalog or a combination of both...not cebuano, so they should accept this fact then let's move on....139.130.237.18 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another view/proposed view

Filipino-

The lingua franca (based on Tagalog ) which is spoken all over the Philippines which is gradually being embedded by Ilocano, Cebuano and other local dialects because of frequent use and is constitutionally endorsed. For example, the 'Tagalog' spoken in Cebu or Mindanao, or Ilocos which contains many Cebuano or Ilocano words.

ie, The 'Tagalog' not spoken in or outside of Metro Manila or Tagalog regions.

Tagalog -

THE original pure unadulterated local language spoken in the Tagalog regions especially in Batangas, Laguna, etc. Not so much what is spoken in Metro Manila which is more 'Taglish'.

--Jondel 00:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of Tuscan, which eventually became Standard Italian.

Here's my take:

• Filipino (or Pilipino) - it borrows words not just on local languages but foreign languages as well. And it uses 28 letters. For example: Magpapaxerox ako is Filipino.
• Tagalog - It is the pure form, it uses 26 letters, and it doesn't borrow words and letters from other languages.

Circa 1900 10:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is not much of a "versus". Tagalog should be easily defined as the language of the ethnic group. Then defining Filipino is the problem. It was its purpose to unite the ethnic diversity in a way. As such it is a lingua franca. Then what is harder to explain is the diversity of Filipino as it is for any other lingua franca i guess.

Although these forms of speech are related, Filipino is much more diverse than Tagalog. "Nagkain ka na ba?" is frequently heard in Mindanao, but is wrong in ethnic Tagalog.

Shouldn't be a problem. When the Tuscan language was chosen to be the national language of the newly created Kingdom of Italy in 1861 and renamed to "Italian" it didn't cause much of a problem. When "melayu pesar" was renamed to Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Language) by the new Republic of Indonesia and made the official language the move was praised by the people looking for a way to unite themselves knowing that they speak different languages at home. Only in the Philippines can we find this confusing situation. It seems to me everyone wants their own language to be the national language, including every ayta, lumad, and igorot. To recall a popular joke, it's no wonder the devil did not put a lid on the Philippine cage in hell - he knew that Filipinos would naturally pull each other down. Just my thoughts. - fbg

I can see your point. Cavour (whose native language was French) used Italian in his public speeches, even if he often sounded stilted and ridiculous. That’s patriotism right there. —Lagalag 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The linguistic (scientific) view

Filipino is a dialect of the Tagalog spoken in Manila. Manila Tagalog was the base of the national language and the tradition continued via various renamings since its appointment as national language in 1937.

Tagalog is any Tagalog variety - not just the "pure" Tagalog that people claim is spoken in Bulacan, Batangas, or whatever. Yes, even the Tagalog of Metro Manila is Tagalog. It's Tagalog with English borrowings which can also be termed Taglish. It's like franglais - French doesn't cease to be French simply because English words are present. Tagalog has a lot of Spanish words, yet we don't call it Tagpañol. Tagalog pa, di ba?

Also, the vocabulary is not the sole identifer of a language. The grammar plays a huge role too. Unless someone can provide conclusive evidence to contrary, Filipino is gramatically identical to Tagalog. I am highly skeptical of people who claim that there is a difference between Filipino & Tagalog. The proof's right there in plain sight. --Chris S. 04:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a cleanup

Is not pertaining to the manual of style or general format of the language articles already present. Encyclopedist (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't need one, really. Filipino was created in 1987. Anything before that is Tagalog language. --Chris S. 22:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of Tuscan Italian?

(mirroring that of the Tuscan dialect of Italian)

Could someone who's qualified to evaluate what that claim is about either explain it or remove it? --babbage 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In essence, a particular dialect is chosen as the standard due to whatever prestige it may hold. It happened to the Tuscan dialect of Italian, which is what standard Italian is based on. Other comparisons - Parisian dialect of French, Hannover dialect of German, London dialect of English English, Midwestern dialect of American English, Tokyo dialect of Japanese, etc. In the Philippines' case, the dialect of Manila was chosen and not those of say, Batangas, Bulacan, or Marinduque. --Chris S. 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filipino is a fictional language

Filipino exists in the constitution. Also "Filipino" language you'd hear and see are Tagalog. The only "Filipino" words are those words that were borrowed form other language, like beysbol. --Howard the Duck 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not fictional but artificial

Quezon gathered many words including visayan words. I know because I saw and used 'tindig'(too stand) in conversation in Manila which I found in the Pilipino (not visayan)dictionary. People said I was bisaya.--Jondel 07:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enrichment

The use of words such as beysbol and kompyuter enrich the existing language, not create another one (just as the use of elevator and trailer in North America do not create another language different from the one used in Britain). —Lagalag 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Italian and German dialects

Well, it’s true. While one may argue with another over the nature of Venetian or Bavarian, the fact is the Italian or German man on the street will tell you that these are dialects, or at least are popularly known as. It’s a political thing. I’m removing the tag. —Lagalag 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doubled consonants

Many, particularly in the academe, have taken up the position that Filipino ought to be an amalgamation of all indigenous languages based on a Tagalog core grammar, so basically we’re talking here about convergence of vocabulary, phonology, etc. One of the unique features of Ilokano phonology (and possibly those of other indigenous languages) however is doubled consonants, and I’ve always wondered whether such an element would also be incorporated into this proposed form of the Filipino language, and whether its proponents have indeed been doubling consonants whenever deemed appropriate. —Lagalag 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagalog

But Tagalog is just also a dialect, right? It's quite confusing if the language "covers all dialects..." --210.213.180.106 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Tagalog is a language. So are Cebuano, Ilokano, Hiligaynon, Bikol, Kapampangan, etc. I don't understand what you mean by confusing. Care to elaborate? --Chris S. 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, do we need a Filipino grammar article?

So, now we have an article on Tagalog and one on Filipino. Can they share one article about grammar, or do we need two? I think one makes more sense, it might just need a few notes added to the Tagalog grammar article for the cases (if there are any) where Tagalog grammar is not the same as Filipino grammar. Can Filipino grammar be a redirect to Tagalog grammar? Gronky 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A redirect would be fine (I just made one) because Tagalog & Filipino are identical in their grammar. Since Tagalog has a broader scope, if any major pecularities in Filipino grammar can be found, they can simply be addressed in a section. --Chris S. 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

Most of these sounded more like debate transcriptions. —Lagalag 10:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Filipino being by law any autochtonous Austronesian language spoken in any urban center in the country

This is problematic, since Filipino is by law not based on Tagalog but is rather the language spoken in urban centers throughout the country and not any particular ethnic language, as the law would presumably tend to define a wider range of speakers as first language speakers of Filipino rather than second language speakers of Tagalog. The children of interethnic marriages in many parts of the country, even where both parents are non-Tagalogs, would be more fluent in Filipino than any other Philippine language or English, and yet they may reside far from the ethnic region of the Tagalogs. Filipino would then be described as a legitimate and vibrant language, and that in the various regional dialectal variations of Filipino there is already a significant number of regional-language words in use. Admittedly these regional dialectal usages are seldom popularized nationally, especially in comparison to the flood of loanwords from English, but the spoken language basis for such a process of popularization and dissemination is in place.

[edit] First-language Filipino as opposed to Tagalog speakers

This growth in “first-language speakers” is in part because of the rapid growth of the Metromanileño population, mainly through the influx of non-Tagalogs themselves, whose children become first-language Tagalog-speakers; but it is also because there is a shift in lingua franca to Filipino even in parts of the country that are non-Tagalog. Cotabato City is populated by a mixture of Hiligaynon-, Ilocano-, Zamboangueño-, Maguindanao-, Tagalog-, and Cebuano-language speakers, with no ethnic group dominating. In the past, people might have naturally turned to Cebuano as a lingua franca since it remains the most important lingua franca in virtually all of Mindanao. Yet in fact, Cotabato City has turned to Tagalog as its lingua franca, although it is not an ethnically Tagalog city (as if it mattered; if it did, Filipino Anglophones would stop speaking their English mother-tongue because they're not ethnically English). Children growing up in Cotabato City would then, according to lingua-franca advocates, be best considered native speakers of Filipino, not of Tagalog nor of Cebuano. A similar situation is true in Baguio, where Ilocano used to be the lingua franca among the ethnic Pangasinan, Ilocano, assorted Igorot and Tagalog residents, the language of the public school playground is now Filipino. It should be remembered, however, that nowhere in the body of Philippine laws is Tagalog defined as the basis of Filipino, and that the language of any major urban area in the Philippines is that which defines Filipino.^[1]

[edit] Perhaps

[P]erhaps only history will tell which account of Tagalog and Filipino is a better characterization of the current situation and dynamic.

[edit] Standardization of Filipino based on the NCR dialect of Tagalog

Tagalog as spoken in the capital, however, is difficult to use as a standard, but only should such an enterprise be willed. It is rapidly and constantly evolving, and there is no dictionary or guidebook to define what is proper usage or which words are considered to be officially part of the language. This is compounded by the problem that middle- and upper-class Filipinos are bilingual or multilingual, predominantly using English, Taglish (Tagalog heavily mixed with English), or Englog in everyday conversation. The latter two essentially are used for informal communication, however, and it is generally not acceptable in formal written communication for government, academia, or business.

[edit] Ethnic language

The number of native speakers of Tagalog is arguably fewer than the first language speakers of Filipino, because non-Tagalog residents in cities like Cotabato City, which are some distance away from the Tagalog regions of central and southern Luzon, may have Filipino as their first language, but be reluctant to call themselves native speakers of Tagalog if only because they are (ethnically) not native Tagalogs,{{dubious}} though this does not explain how Chinese Filipinos, Spanish Filipinos, and other non-Austronesian groups can claim to be native speakers of Tagalog and not native speakers of Fujianese, Spanish, or even Basque. Probably anybody who is a second-language speaker of Filipino can also be called a second-language speaker of Tagalog. The difference is perhaps more significant in the norms of writing and speech than in the number of persons identifiable as speakers of one language variant or the other. According to the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino the absence of the phoneme /f/ in the Tagalog language is the main proof that Filipino isn't simply Tagalog but a language heavily based on Tagalog and but influenced by all the other languages existing within the islands. Some even argue that words like the Hiligaynon bana (husband) is included in the dictionary published by the Komisyon as a standard vocabulary. During the time when the official language was still Pilipino (before it was replaced in the 1987 Constitution by Filipino) the tendency was towards purism (akin to that of the Icelandic Language Institute), even trying to replace words of Spanish or English origin with new artificially coined words that are based on Tagalog.

[edit] Ethnic neutrality

Because referring to the Filipino language as “Tagalog”, which is also the name of an ethnic group, it is a politically sensitive issue to claim that Filipino is just Tagalog. As a name for a language variety, the word Tagalog is non-neutral and may be understood as privileging a particular ethnic group. Filipino is arguably a more neutral term, taken from the name of the whole nation rather than just one ethnic group.

[edit] Filipino as distinct from or identical to Tagalog

Should we accept that Filipino and Tagalog are two different languages, Filipino should theoretically be labelled the High Language and Tagalog the Low Language. But this doesn't happen in practice. Most Filipinos residing in the region would say they are speaking in Tagalog, whether speaking in formal situations or not. In fact, the only place where there is no confusion on which language is spoken is in the classroom, where everybody would say they are speaking in Filipino. But the moment they step out of the room they would once again say that they spoke in Tagalog.

According to the KWF, the very reason that the Filipino language begins with the letter F makes it undoubtedly different from Tagalog. The KWF stresses the fact that the letter 'f' (pronounced as the phoneme /f/) does not appear in the Tagalog alphabet. True to this fact, Filipinos often would have difficulty in pronoucing the phoneme /f/, nearly always replacing it with the phoneme /p/.

[edit] Ideals, and dialects vs. languages

This is not only based on variation, since there are Tagalog has other dialects, but it is arguably the most important dimension for orthography, standardization and intellectualization of language. This view is based on the selection of Tagalog as the national language in 1937, akin to the selection in the 1860s of Tuscan as the core base of the Italian language. (Note that in Philippine English usage, regional languages (or what linguists, both Filipino and international, and most foreigners would call a distinct regional language) are usually referred to as dialects, even though there is a clear recognition of different regional ethnic groups known to have mutually unintelligible forms of speech. For most of the world, two varieties of speech are different languages if they are mutually unintelligible; but in the Philippines they are often called dialects even though their relationship is known to be so distant as to be mutually unintelligible and that their speakers do not consider themselves to be speakers of one language. This is also the case in Germany and in Italy, where native languages apart from the standard are termed as dialects.)

[edit] On amalgamation

In an interview made to the former KWF Commissioner Nita Buenaobra in the celebration of the National Language Month, August 2003, she commented that although one cannot call Filipino an artificial language because the vocabulary has meanings in another language (in this case the different autochtonous Austronesian languages), one can still call it a pidgin because it is supposed to be a hybrid of all the existing languages in the country (including Spanish, Arabic, and the different Chinese dialects). (The words of several artificial languages, though, do have meanings in natural languages.) She even cited that, being a language spoken by the whole archipelago, one can find native speakers of Filipino in the Visayan-language dominated island of Mindanao, with the city of General Santos being its centre. Ironically, this view given by a former government official would not fully conform to the description of Filipino as defined in the Constitution and relevant laws.

The problem with amalgamation is that if all the words and, to a lesser extent, the grammatical structures, from other Philippine languages are to be included in Filipino, then the purpose of a lingua franca is forfeited: people speaking the Ilocano variety of Filipino would not be able to communicate effectively with someone speaking the Cebuano variety. It could be argued however that a common core lexicon could emerge over time as a result of certain words or grammatical or phonological structures (such as double consonants in Ilocano, etc.) being widely and continuously used while certain others being abandoned, a case of linguistic natural selection.

[edit] Recognition of Cebuano

Debate moved from Cebuano language.

The use of Tagalog as a basis for Pilipino in the 1940s drew the most criticism from Cebuano speakers. To some extent, the use of Tagalog was actively resisted. For instance, after an attempt by the central government to enforce the use of Tagalog as the language of instruction in all public schools in the eighties, the governor of Cebu initiated the singing of the Philippine national anthem in Cebuano rather than in Pilipino (Tagalog) in the island province of Cebu. This resistance was not intended to undermine the country's national unity. On the part of the Cebuanos, it was mostly a protest against "imperial Manila" and a clamor for linguistic and regional recognition.

In fairness, the selection of Tagalog was based on (a) its being the language of the revolution against Spain, (b) it having the largest literature among Philippine languages at the time of the selection, (c) being understood outside of its set of native speakers more than other Philippine languages, and (d) being the language of Manila which was the capital of the country at the time the selection was made (Cebu was once the capital, other cities that once held the title were Quezon City and Baguio). The head of the selection panel, Dr. Jaime de Veyra, was a Waray. There was one representative for each of the major languages in the country. It could be argued, though, that then President Quezon was a Tagalog and could have exerted undue influence upon the selection process. However such a suggestion is highly speculative.

The Cebuano desire for special recognition finds support from the following arguments:

1. Historically, Cebu is the first and oldest city in the Philippines, an ancient hub of trade with the Arabs and the Chinese. It was also the first city established by Legazpi. Long before Manila fell into the hands of the Spanish in the 16th century, Cebu was already an established trading and military post for the Spaniards.
2. Linguistically, Cebuano is the country's second most widely-used language. During the period after independence until the mid-seventies, it was the largest linguistic group. This however is irrelevant as Tagalog-speakers have traditionally produced the most extensive body of written literature compared to speakers of other Philippine languages, which is the most important factor in selecting the core basis for the formation of a national language. Whether or not that language is the language of the capital or not is immaterial (as in the cases of Malaysia, Indonesia, Italy, etc., whose national languages are not based on the speech of Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Rome, etc.).
3. Strategically and commercially, Cebu is the alternate gateway to Manila due to its geographical location, adding significance to its language. Cebuano is the native language of the majority in more regions than Tagalog, being the language with the most native speakers in Region VII (Central Visayas), Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula), Region X (Northern Mindanao), Region XI (Davao Region), Caraga Region, and Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN). There are also significant numbers of speakers in Region VI (Western Visayas, mostly in San Carlos City and neighboring areas) and Region VIII (Eastern Visayas, mostly in western Leyte and Southern Leyte). By comparison, Tagalog is the language of the majority in the NCR, Region IV-A, Region IV-B, and Region III (Central Luzon, where Kapampangan and Ilocano also dominate some areas).
4. Politically, since the colonial days of the Spanish and Americans, the Cebuanos have resented perceived "arrogance" from Manila. In the Marcos years, Cebu, with the exception of Durano-held Danao, was regarded as a staunch center of opposition. However, making Cebu the center of everything Filipino does not erase the "arrogance" but only transfers that trait to the Cebuanos and their new Imperial Cebu.

[edit] "amalgamation" theory needs citation

I added a citation request and it has been removed. My request was for a citation about the section titled "Filipino as an amalgamation of all languages used in the Philippines". I have never encountered anyone who supports this interpretation of what Filipino means. Some people suppor the idea that Filipino is Tagalog plus borrowed words from every Philippine language, or from all the large ones, but that is not an amalgamation of languages used in the Philippines. An amalgamation of all languages used in the Philippines would create a language with 50+ words for "house" (bahay, balay, bayay, etc.), 50+ sets of verb conjugation systems, etc. Nobody actually suggests that, so it is misleading for the article to claim that this is one theory of what "Filipino" means. Unless someone has a citation to prove that this "amalgamation" theory is commonly believed, that section cannot stay in it's current form, IMO. Gronky 08:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "amalgamation" was just a bad choice of words, maybe the writer didn't mean the sense that I assumed. So I've changed that section to be a "blend" of all languages used in the Philippines. Gronky 08:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

blend is probably better than amalgamation. I think the key lies in the section intro, however, which asserts that there continue to exist alternative proposals. The section then goes on to present subsections offering various alternatives. I believe that the assertion that the various alternatives mentioned are actually serious alternative proposals ought to be supported by cites. -- Boracay Bill 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)